If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

There were a few instances mentioned by posters (like f ex Abby Normal), who had themselves been witnesses to criminals stopping and bluffing it out. But all in all, the question is a moot one - again; there have been lots of examples of serial killings where things happened for the first time.
Letīs also remember that what you are asking for is examples of killers who have feigned a role as witnesses. I posted one such case myself a year or two ago, but it may well be that there are cases where the perp was not disclosed.

If you want to make a case for it being impossible for a killer to stay put and bluff it out, be my guest.

If you want to make a case for it being a very rare thing, I will support you, because it is.

All you have to do is to decide which of the options you wish to go with.

I’m asking a for cited, documented evidence where numerous witnesses were pulled into an homicide event by the murderer. Not ones take on if Cross would or would not have done such a thing. Though it’s generally accepted such a thing is indeed rare.

Comment

Well, itīs up to you to either try and keep track of the subject or not to give a damn about it. I can only ask you to stay on track, and if you wish to discuss other matters, I can point you to a suitable thread.

Itīs that easy.

The track hasnt really wavered since 2014/15, its not hard to follow.

Comment

I’m asking a for cited, documented evidence where numerous witnesses were pulled into an homicide event by the murderer. Not ones take on if Cross would or would not have done such a thing. Though it’s generally accepted such a thing is indeed rare.

Monty

Yes, exactly - it is rare. It is not impossible. There is no reason at all to go looking for an example of another such murder. It is only if it is impossible for a killer to stay put and bluff it out the lack of any parallel examples could be useful.

And we all know that it is not impossible. Rare? Yes. Impossible? No.

If I was to spend the next year digging out examples and if i come up with three such cases, all that would do would be to prove the exact same thing: that it is rare.

If you really believe that is IS impossible, then you must do the digging yourself, Iīm afraid. And prove to the world that it has never happened.

Comment

Im assuming tou mean have witnesses been pulled into an event by the perp?

Yes, ive had happen to me.

And its known to happen, killer calling the police himself, killer telling other people to check up on someone theyve killed etc.

And similar, the witness being first to find the body, always is cleared (or not) by police.

It is a bit of a lost battle Monty is fighting. He seemingly hopes to prove that it is a very rare thing to have a killer staying put at a murder scene and bluffing it out.
Once he proves that, he will be agreeing with me.

Comment

Did Lech really hold on to the murder weapon? That alone would have seen him reacting suspicious when the police were questioning him, but again nothing seemed to be amiss or out of the ordinary.

Who can tell? If he was the killer, there would have been no opportunity for him to discard the weapon before he met Mizen, unless he did it before Paul arrived - but the grounds were searched and no weapon found.
Are you aware of how many times the police have spoken to killers without noticing something out of the ordinary? When Christie was interviewed, the police took a look in his backyard, without finding the people buried there. and without noticing that the fence in the backyard was partly supported by the femur of a victim.
They found nothing out of the ordinary.
Overall, I find this kind of point a rather useless one. It is not as if the police have built-in radars that will disclose any criminal thought within any person they meet. We do not live in a perfect world, Iīm afraid.

Comment

There were a few instances mentioned by posters (like f ex Abby Normal), who had themselves been witnesses to criminals stopping and bluffing it out. But all in all, the question is a moot one - again; there have been lots of examples of serial killings where things happened for the first time.
Letīs also remember that what you are asking for is examples of killers who have feigned a role as witnesses. I posted one such case myself a year or two ago, but it may well be that there are cases where the perp was not disclosed.

If you want to make a case for it being impossible for a killer to stay put and bluff it out, be my guest.

If you want to make a case for it being a very rare thing, I will support you, because it is.

All you have to do is to decide which of the options you wish to go with.

But if it's a "very rare thing", why's it being assumed that's exactly what Lechmere did?

Personally, I wouldn't rukebhim out, based either on his actions or residence. But I just don't see a smoking gun that would make him a compelling suspect.

Comment

But if it's a "very rare thing", why's it being assumed that's exactly what Lechmere did?

Personally, I wouldn't rukebhim out, based either on his actions or residence. But I just don't see a smoking gun that would make him a compelling suspect.

It is assumed that he was the killer on account of a number of matters, as you are aware.

And if he was, it remains that he stayed put at the scene of the Nichols murder.

The equations is a very simple and straightforward one. And one must keep in mind that the circumstances relating to a crime may have a large effect on how very rare things come about, just as the disposition of the criminal may also have such an effect.

In the absolute majority of murder cases, the killer ensures that there are no witnesses standing by. This alone means that any murder where somebody comes upon the murder site in direct relation to the murder being committed - the way Paul will have done if Lechmere was the killer - will be quite a rare thing in itself. That is where the journey to "very rare" starts. If you then add psychopathy and a few other bits and bobs, like the locality of the murders, you can easily see how we may need to accept that the Nichols murder was something very much out of the ordinary.

Going "Oh, it was very rare, so it probably didnīt happen" is not going to help us.

So there is a huge difference between a rare incident and two rare incidents together.

Now how about this next probability... ...

If a Serial Killer murders in Buck's row early in the morning hours before the crack of dawn workers set off to work, what are the chances she will be found by one of these early dawn workers before a PC will?

What are chances that out of a group of early morning workers, one of them would be Cross?

I think one will find the odds on that far better than serial lust killers masquerading as a witness discovering a body.

So there is a huge difference between a rare incident and two rare incidents together.

Now how about this next probability... ...

If a Serial Killer murders in Buck's row early in the morning hours before the crack of dawn workers set off to work, what are the chances she will be found by one of these early dawn workers before a PC will?

What are chances that out of a group of early morning workers, one of them would be Cross?

I think one will find the odds on that far better than serial lust killers masquerading as a witness discovering a body.

Well we already know that a serial killer was at work so you can take that out of the equation. Lol

But yes of course, the odds are an innocent witness would find the body.

But put it this way...

What are chances that an innocent witness is seen near the body before they try to raise any alarm?or What are the chances that paul comes upon lech at that very moment? Ive never heard of such a thing before.

Or try this.. imagine your paul and you see a man in the dark of night standing near the body of a murdered woman in a deserted street.

Comment

The impossibility of the situation is that Cross,unless he lied,could not have been in the presence of Nichol's when she was killed.He could not have been her killer,and untill his evidence,and it was sworn evidence,is shown to be false,Cross can never be suspect.He found a body,there is no evidence of him doing anything else as regards Nichol's.This situation has not changed one little bit over the years.There is no evidence Cross lied,and for those who continually stress the need for evidence,and support Cross as JTR,they should come forward with evidence of lies on his part.

While geographically it may be possible to connect Cross with the murder sites,there is another consideration that is equally important.Can Cross be connected geographically with the meeting of victims and killer?Of course not,as there is no evidence to support such meetings in all cases.If the killer met Nichol's in a place other than Bucks Row,then that too counts against Cross being guilty,and the further away the lesser the chance.So this geographical stuff is pure nonsence.

Comment

The impossibility of the situation is that Cross,unless he lied,could not have been in the presence of Nichol's when she was killed.He could not have been her killer,and untill his evidence,and it was sworn evidence,is shown to be false,Cross can never be suspect.He found a body,there is no evidence of him doing anything else as regards Nichol's.This situation has not changed one little bit over the years.There is no evidence Cross lied,and for those who continually stress the need for evidence,and support Cross as JTR,they should come forward with evidence of lies on his part.

While geographically it may be possible to connect Cross with the murder sites,there is another consideration that is equally important.Can Cross be connected geographically with the meeting of victims and killer?Of course not,as there is no evidence to support such meetings in all cases.If the killer met Nichol's in a place other than Bucks Row,then that too counts against Cross being guilty,and the further away the lesser the chance.So this geographical stuff is pure nonsence.

Hi harry
Well if hes her killer idont think hes going to tell the truth and admit he killed her, so of course hes going to lie if hes her killer.

There is evidence he may have lied, he had a discrepency with the cop over what he said.
So either the cop lied, he lied or there was a simple misunderstanding(most probable). But theres a potential red flag.

The geographical stuff is not nonsense. The starting point to establishing any suspect as viable, is to first place them in the area at the time and then make the connection to any crime scenes. We have both with lech with direct documented known evidence he was with a victim around TOD. And a travel patern that would place him close to the others.

"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline